US pulls out of the United Nations; No one notices

UNITED NATIONS, June 25, 2018 (The Loose Nukes) -- UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres regretted the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations, said his spokesman earlier today.

"The secretary-general would have preferred for the United States to remain in the global body," said Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman, in a note to correspondents. "The United Nations came into being in 1945, following the devastation of the Second World War, with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN also promotes and protects human rights, promotes sustainable development, and upholds international law. The support of the US working for these goals, rather than against them, would be a huge boost for the UN."

The remarks came shortly after U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced in Washington that the United States is officially withdrawing from the UN. The message was met by a standing ovation on the floor of the General Assembly, where 192 member states - the US was conspicuously absent - were convened. The session resumed without any more mention of the US.

U.S. President Donald Donald Trump spoke of his decision, saying, “The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad! It's a bad deal for the US. We should get our money back."

A White House source, who wished to remain anonymous, said that Trump's decision came immediately following a meeting with his National Security Advisor, John Bolton.

Bolton is known for having said, in a 1994 speech referring to the UN's headquarters, that, "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories; if you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," He added later: "There's no such thing as the United Nations."

In Geneva, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein responded that the U.S. withdrawal is "not really surprising. The US has been going it alone for quite a while. This decision is the culmination of that decline."

US Backs Treaty to Arm the World

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $85.3 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

An unnamed adminstration spokesperson was quick to point out that "Romney stands to gain [financially] from any treaty that we sign on global arms sales.  Before signing such a treaty, we will ensure that our nation's defense industry is protected from financial harm.  After all, we gobble up a healthy 78% of that global arms pie.  We're talking $66.3 billion in 2011.  That's huge!  And, we're not giving up any of it."



"Does the price include flight training?"

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.  In the U.S. a steady stream of Lobbyists for major arms producers have been seen pouring into the Pentagon for secret meetings on the issue.An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states like our own to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will  accept neither any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms, nor one that infringes on the rights of corporations to sell arms," he said. 

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports. 

U.S. weapons producers are watching Treaty negotiations closely.   

A weapons industry insider, who asked not to be named, said that no treaty would ever by signed by the U.S. that would limit the ability of major U.S. arms producers to sell whatever they want, whenever they want, and to whomever they want.  "They [arms producers] have a sweet deal with the Pentagon.  The U.S. provides foreign aid to any number of countries, and they turn around and sink that money into U.S.-made arms.  Is this economic stimulus or what?"

The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

In related news, the election seems to have created a run on gun stocks.  A number of stocks, including firearms manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger popped Wednesday. Shares of hunting goods retailers Cabela's and Big 5 Sporting Goods were also higher. Nothing like a little right-wing paranoia to help (isolated sectors of) the stock market.

###

Thanks to Reuters for the original article that gave the impetus for this "doctored" news article.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107 

The idea of U.S. weapons systems manufacturers and arms dealers giving up one cent of their hard earned money would make their lobbyists all collapse in shock.  We arm the world (to the tune of $66.3 billion in 2011) and that is music to companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon.  Ka-Ching!!!

"Arms deliveries to developing countries last year were the highest since 2004, totalling $28 billion, or around 60% of global sales. America and Russia, the world’s leading arms suppliers, accounted for around two-thirds of deliveries to the developing world. America’s exports in particular are helped by a long-standing client base, which orders upgrades, spare parts and support services every year. Arms deals were buoyed last year by unusually high demand from Saudi Arabia." (Source: The Economist)

UN Security Council Vows No Nuclear Attack on Mongolia

On Monday, the five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council reaffirmed their promise not to attack Mongolia with nuclear weapons.

Mongolia was relieved to hear the news.

In an official statement the Mongolian Prime Minister, Norovyn Altankhuyag, said, "This is an auspicious day.  Today, Mongolians can temporarily stop digging bomb shelters and get back to useful, life-sustaining work.  We are grateful to the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council for recognizing and agreeing to respect Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status."

In separate remarks the Prime Minister said that he is very concerned about the Unites States' increasing military presence in the Asia-Pacific region and what this could mean for the security of Asian nations.  He stated that his concern stems from the increasing tensions between the U.S. and China, as well as Russia, and the continued deployment of nuclear weapons by all three nations.  "Being squeezed between China and Russia, we may need to re-start digging those bomb shelters one day soon."

Representatives at the UN Security Council vote [not to nuke Mongolia] in New York
(Lucas Jackson/Courtesy Reuters).


Subsequent to the vote in the Security Council it was learned that the U.S. Representative to the Security Council was initially reluctant to vote for reaffirmation, but after finally reading a copy of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons became convinced it was the appropriate course of action.

The Mongolian Prime Minister was overheard in a conversation with the Permanent Representative of Mongolia to the United Nations saying "Only idiots would spend all that money on nuclear weapons."  When asked about whom the Prime Minister was speaking, an aide confirmed that he was referring to the United States.  The aide added that "the U.S. has spent hundreds or perhaps thousands of times our nation's GNP, not to mention our defense budget, building up its nuclear weapons infrastructure and refurbishing its nuclear weapons in recent years. That's alot of Yaks."

According to the latest Military Balance, Mongolia has a defense budget of $38 million and an active-duty military comprising 8,900 army, 800 air force, and 800 construction troops. As the CIA notes, “There is no navy... and a snowball's chance in hell of even thinking about developing nuclear weapons."

On Tuesday, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are scheduled to meet againg, this time to reaffirm their promise not to attack Lichtenstein with nuclear weapons.

###

Original source article URLs:
1) http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/09/19/un-security-council-vows-no-nuclear-attack-on-mongolia/
2) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197873.htm

Trident: Circumcision or...

All right Friends,

I know, I know!!!  You're all thinking I've gone off the deep end, and the censors should be called in right about now.  But wait; this is all very much on the up and up.  It seems that just maybe we in the U.S. can learn a thing or two about how to get a discussion going about nuclear weapons - Trident in this particular case.

I'm referring to Willard Foxton's article in the Huffington Post titled "Is it Time for Britain's Nuclear Circumcision?"  You certainly won't see an article - at least we haven't yet - with that kind of title authored by anyone here in the Colonies... er, States.

I love this guy; it's like we're kindred spirits.  He starts off by saying, "Sometimes, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills."  I know just how he feels!  He also refers to himself as a "Feminist, Multiculturalist Tory."  That just has to be good.   But I digress... He continues: 

I seem to be one of the only people who has noticed that amid the biggest financial crisis in a generation, parliament has just insouciantly waved through £350 million on some drawings of some new submarines. Maybe I'm being unfair - maybe there will also be scale models to sit on an admiral's desk too, maybe even a Troy Tempest uniform for Nick Clegg to dress up in - but it still seems like a hell of a lot of money.

Of course, this £350 million quid is just a down-payment - the start of the whole bloated nightmare of the hooting defence procurement panjandrum. Now that we've paid out £350 million quid on sci-fi submarine drawings, any attempt to now withdraw from this commitment will be met with a round chorus of boos and hisses about wasted money.

There is almost literally no political debate on this issue, which I find astounding. I mean, I understand why, in narrow, party political terms.

But wait!  It keeps getting better. Foxton comes up with a new corporate moniker for BAE Systems the folks who make a killing on the British Trident whether or not it ever fires off a nuke: Ocean Going Holocaust Delivery Mechanism Manufacturers Inc.

Still, this is a big deal - we are not only putting a truly vast sum of money at stake - the defence contractors estimate £25 billion, so we can assume at least three times that, 10 years late - we are also binding ourselves into a strategic commitment to maintaining not just a nuclear arsenal, but to a uniquely cold-war era one, based around submarine launched ballistic missiles.

The question someone in parliament - be they a pinko, dope-smoking commie-coddling lefty pacifist, or an austerity loving, state-hating, swivel eyed right winger - should be asking is "Would Britain in the mid-21st century become a significantly less safe place if we possessed different, cheaper nuclear weapons?"

Even if you leave aside the moral arguments around nuclear weapons - and I'm sure BAE Systems Submarine Solutions, unlikely to rebrand any time as Ocean Going Holocaust Delivery Mechanism Manufacturers Inc any time soon - would like us to, there are compelling practical arguments for a different kind of weapons system. A real public argument around what form our should take deterrent, or indeed, whether we should have one at all, and about defence generally, is badly needed.

If you look around, and ask the forbidden question, "what are the plausible threats to Britain?", the Trident system becomes increasingly suspect.

Does it stop Terrorism? Do nuclear weapons deter that? Where are we going to fire a Trident in retaliation for a terrorist attack? Mecca? Belfast? Bradford?

Then, Foxton takes up the age old question of "deterrence."  And he asks all the right questions, including what's up with Britain's reliance on the U.S.???  But he really hits the nail on the head when he asks how deterrence will work with rogue states like Iran or France!!!

Is it a deterrent to rising powers like China or Russia? If Britain were to stand alone in a showdown with nukes on the table, it would be doomed. The UK's security against big power aggression must depend on our alliance with the USA. It's hard to swallow but sadly true - and in any case, the trident system is totally reliant on US technology, expertise and support, so any idea it is an "independent deterrent" is sadly flawed.

Of course, there is a real threat that could be deterred from rogue states like Iran or France. But we must ask ourselves the question, is a ballistic missile system the best answer for that? There is an important distinction between retaining a some nuclear weapons and none at all.


Are cheaper nuclear cruise missiles fired from cheaper, multirole attack submarines any less deterring? Are they less deterring if the missile is fired from a ship? From a plane? From a really big cannon?

I'd conclude that they are slightly less deterring, but only slightly - there is a slim chance of shooting down a cruise missile, or destroying an aircraft before it launches one. But it ignores the reality that there could be tens or hundreds coming through - it's not a chance I'd bet on, when losing the bet is a whole city and hundreds of thousands of people burned to ashes. It's a gamble someone would only take if they probably wouldn't be deterred by our ballistic missiles anyway.

Foxton really gets it.  And I mean GETS IT!!!  He truly understands the ultimate rational for a nuclear weapons system like Trident (subs, missiles, the whole catastrophe).  And he articulates it in terms that are so beautifully and artfully British.  It is, of course, the "big willy" argument (or "massive willy" as the case may be).  In Foxton's own words:

The arguments deployed for keeping Trident, rather than some other system, are often weak, even laughable. Notably, some worry about trifles like the international legality of cruise missiles - as though a bomb that incinerates hundreds of thousands is fine so long as it drops vertically rather than horizontally. Among those who want to keep Trident, probably the most cited, but least convincing, is what is known in the as the "big willy" argument.

This argues that Britain's influence - our permanent UN security council seat, our trade links, our ability to have David Cameron cheering for Chelsea in the White House situation room - would be in jeopardy if we began dismantling some of our nuclear weapons. This is tragic, 1950s, post-imperial thinking. National security is vital - but having a massive willy to wave in the faces of other leaders is not.

Of course, Foxton keeps the options open when he calls for open discussions about issues of such magnitude as Trident. 

That's not to say there aren't some convincing reasons to have a like-for-like replacement - I just wish we would have those discussions openly, unfettered by weak-kneed short-term political calculations. What we really need is real debate on the topic - personally, I'm sure we can be just as safe if Mr. Cameron decides he can cope with a little circumcision.

As for Foxton's closer, this is the only part of his brilliant essay with which I must vehemently disagree.  From a kosher standpoint circumcision would never be enough for Trident.  The only option I can see for such a horrific, omnicidal weapons system is ________________ (fill in the blank). 

###

Read Willard Foxton's full article, Is it Time for Britain's Nuclear Circumcision?, at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/willard-foxton/britains-nuclear-circumcision_b_1536588.html